Arceta v Mangrobang the constitutional question raised is the very lis mota of
G.R. No. 152895, June 15, 2004 the case
TOPIC: constitutionality is the very lis mota of the case
Petitioner: Ofelia Arceta
Respondents: THE HONORABLE MA. CELESTINA C.
MANGROBANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 54,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF NAVOTAS
G.R. NO. 153151
GLORIA S. DY, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE
EDWIN B. RAMIZO, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 53,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF CALOOCAN CITY,
RESPONDENT.
Pon: Quisumbing, RESOLUTION certiorari, prohibition,
and mandamus
FACTS
- petitioners want the court to abandon the upholding
of the BP 22 law in the Lozano v Martinez case and
dismiss the cases against them
- Arceta issued check in Sept 1998 amount P740,000
- Arceta did not move to have the charge against her
dismissed or the Information quashed on the ground
that B.P. Blg. 22 was unconstitutional. With the Lozano
doctrine still in place, it would be futile for the court to
go against prevailing jurisprudence
Dy January 2000 P 2.5M check same reasoning as
Arceta.
Hence SC petitions
ISSUE
- unconstitutionality or invalidity of B.P. Blg. 22
HELD
WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED for
utter lack of merit.
RATIO
- oblique attack on the constitutionality of the Bouncing
Checks Law, a matter already passed upon by the
Court through Justice (later Chief Justice) Pedro Yap
almost two decades ago
- When the issue of unconstitutionality of a legislative
act is raised, it is the established doctrine that the
Court may exercise its power of judicial review only if
the following requisites are present: (1) an actual and
appropriate case and controversy exists; (2) a personal
and substantial interest of the party raising the
constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial
review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4)
- used certiorari - In a special civil action of certiorari
the only question that may be raised is whether or not
the respondent has acted without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.[9] Yet
nowhere in these petitions is there any allegation that
the respondent judges acted with grave abuse of
discretion
- petitions are conspicuously devoid of any
attachments or annexes in the form of a copy of an
order, decision, or resolution issued by the respondent
judges so as to place them understandably within the
ambit of Rule 65
- only copies of the Informations in the respective
cases, nothing else
- these petitions for a writ of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus do not qualify as the actual and appropriate
cases contemplated by the rules as the first requisite
for the exercise of this Courts power of judicial review.
- ignored the hierarchy of courts
- Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity
does not mean immediately elevating the matter to
this Court. Earliest opportunity means that the question
of unconstitutionality of the act in question should have
been immediately raised in the proceedings in the
court below.
- the petitioners should have moved to quash the
separate indictments or moved to dismiss the cases in
the proceedings in the trial courts on the ground of
unconstitutionality
- SC cannot rule where that issue was not specifically
raised, insisted upon, and adequately argued. the
instant petitions are patently premature.
- NOT LIS MOTA
- Every law has in its favor the presumption of
constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there
must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the
Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative
or argumentative.
- petitioners did not show how the law transgressed the
constitution
- As we stressed in Lozano, it is precisely during trying
times that there exists a most compelling reason to
strengthen faith and confidence in the financial system
and any practice tending to destroy confidence in
checks as currency substitutes should be deterred, to
prevent havoc in the trading and financial
communities.